table.tableizer-table {border: 1px solid #CCC; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 16px;} .tableizer-table td {padding: 4px; margin: 3px; border: 1px solid #ccc;} .tableizer-table th {background-color: #104E8B; color: #FFF; font-weight: bold;} 2011 Tax Preferences (B) Production (quadrillion BTUs) Tax Preferencesper Quadrillion BTUs Renewables$12.9B7.52$1,715,425,532Fossil Fuels$1.7B81.08$20,966,946Renewable/Fossil FuelsFossil Fuels/RenewablesRenewables/Fossil FuelsRatio7.610.881.8The table above displays: a) The tax preferences in 2011 that went to renewables ($12.9 billion) and fossil fuels ($1.7 billion), for a ratio of 7.6:1 in favor of renewables, data here;b) 2011 production levels for renewables (7.52 quadrillion BTUs) and fossil fuels (81.08 quadrillion BTUs), for a ratio of 10.8:1 in favor of fossil fuels (data here); and c) Tax preferences per quadrillion BTUs for reanewables ($1.7 billion) and fossil fuels (about $21 million), for a ratio of almost 82:1 in favor of renewables.And what kind of return have taxpayers gotten for their coerced investment in the renewable energy sector over the the last few years, e.g. in terms of business success, industry profits, and job creation? Not a very good return, and not very many jobs. In fact, it's likely a pretty negative return. As Marc Theissen reported in the Washington Post last week: "Since taking office, Obama has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses [mostly in renewable energy companies], including as part of his stimulus spending bill. Many of those investments have turned out to be unmitigated disasters — leaving in their wake bankruptcies, layoffs, criminal investigations and taxpayers on the hook for billions."And the Washington Examiner reported last week that "The wind industry has actually lost about 10,000 jobs since 2009." The White House here lists five reasons to repeal tax subsidies for oil companies, and some of those might be valid reasons. But that brings up the question: Why is the government providing forcing taxpayers to provide subsidies to private energy companies in the first place? And if the outrage for forcing taxpayers to subsidize successful, job-creating oil companies that provide more than one-third of our energy is justified, where is the outrage for forcing taxpayers to subsidize unprofitable, renewable solar and wind companies with weak job creation, at 82 times the production-adjusted level of oil companies?

The EIA forecast for Canadian oil output is far more conservative than the 6.7 million bpd estimated by CAPP
Despite the buzz surrounding renewable energy, fossil fuels will still account for 80% of all energy supply by 2040, according to a forecast from the Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the U.S. Energy Department.

Back in December, Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, came out with a pretty bold proposal to simplify America’s energy taxes, and to focus them on a simple goal: that the US should emit less carbon. That should be a pretty easy thing to do, in theory: you just raise taxes on the more carbon-intensive energy sources, while not raising them, or even cutting them, on sustainable energy sources. Except that’s not the way the US tax code works.

Fossil fuels’ dominance will remain unchallenged for at least the next four decades even if countries pursue environment policies, according to a new report by the World Energy Council.
Tectonic shifts are taking place with China replacing the United States as the world’s leading crude importer, even as the U.S. reinvents itself as the world’s largest producer of oil liquids.